This study seeks to explain how the Mongol imperial space was created and administrated by the Mongols and conceived by the Mongols and their subjects mainly in Yuan China and Ilkhanid Iran. It stresses the interplay between the Mongols’ universal vision, their construction of a “Chinggisid space,” and the revival of “glocal” (i.e., local with global characteristic) spatial concepts in Mongol-ruled China and Iran. It starts by reviewing Mongol expansion, analyzing the reasons for its unprecedented success and the impact of its halt, and concludes in assessing the impact of the Mongol Empire on the shaping of the post-Mongol imperial space across Eurasia.

Apart from the very important profession of faith, the Council of Nicaea also promulgated twenty canons, most of which do not receive the same attention in research as the Nicene Creed, although these were already highly esteemed in ancient times. First of all, this chapter provides a brief review of their textual transmission. Besides the original Greek text, which has been handed down in canonical collections and writings of ecclesiastical writers, there are some translations into other ancient languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic). Then after dividing the twenty canons into various thematic groups (for example, laws pertaining to the clergy, sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction), the second part explains each canon with the aid of previous research literature and interpretations in order to provide a short overview of their purpose and content. The third part deals with the reception of the canons in the early Church by councils, bishops, and ecclesiastical writers, and asks what importance was attributed to the Nicene canons in various canonical sources. Finally, some desiderata for future research are discussed.

Constantine's role in calling the Council of Nicaea has long been recognized. But theological interests have overshadowed the political side of his decision-making. In the nineteenth century scholars coined the word “Caesaropapism” for imperial interference that they saw as a threat to the purity of the Church. But the ancient state operated on a different set of principles, and a political approach fills in important blanks in our understanding of the council. By the time Constantine took control of the eastern empire he had learned that the best way to deal with conflict in the Church was to assemble the largest number of bishops possible and have them settle the problem. This is the thinking behind his decision to ask all the bishops in the empire to settle the Arian question. This is why Nicaea became known as the first ecumenical (“world-wide”) council, though in reality almost all of the bishops present came from the East. Publicly, Constantine treated the bishops at Nicaea with respect and humility, but behind the scenes he worked to bring the opposing parties into agreement. The result was the Nicene Creed, still recited (in slightly different form) by Christians today.

A key figure in the Arian dispute leading up to and following the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Caesarea (bishop c. 313-39) was not only implicated as a central player in the broader theological developments of the early fourth century but was also one of the most significant formulators of ancient literary representations of the council itself. His writings contain an eye-witness account of the council; a broader narrative of Constantine’s interactions with Christian bishops; letters of Constantine addressing issues of theological or practical debate; his own letters to his home congregation at Caesarea and to other bishops involved in the controversy; and his theological polemic against Marcellus of Ancyra, the promoter of a more radical anti-Arian position. These texts simultaneously assist and complicate modern attempts to construct the precise nature and dynamics of the controversy, the council, and its aftermath. They also provide a fascinating angle by which to discern important features of Eusebius’s fertile authorial work: he stands as a careful and creative formulator of a powerful historiographic, theological, and political vision that would make a signal impact upon later competing accounts of the Council of Nicaea.

The introduction to this volume begins with a reflection on the impact of Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, especially for its presentation of the Council of Nicaea as a conspiratorial moment in the history of Christianity. It then offers a sweeping examination of how various contemporary Christian traditions and denominations have received the Council of Nicaea and its creed and how they understand historical figures such as Arius and Constantine. As we near the 1,700-year anniversary of the first “ecumenical” council, the chapters in this volume will revisit old debates and discussions, ask new questions, and offer different perspectives on the people, context, and consequences related to the Council of Nicaea.

The bitter division in Alexandria that led to the Council of Nicaea began as a theological dispute between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and a significant number of his clergy, including a presbyter Arius, and quickly overflowed into a feud among eastern bishops. “Arianism” was assumed by scholars and theologians to be a coherent set of heretical teachings embraced by a succession of followers. Historians have now identified sets of alliances rather than genealogies as well as the polemical construction of “Arianism” by Athanasius and Marcellus. This separation of Arius from later “Arianism,” together with the continuing lack of consensus with regard to theological or philosophical genealogies as the source of his thought, encourages another look at the particular social and religious context of the initial local controversy. The central issues of monotheism, apophatic theology, incarnation, and changeability in fact map over traditional Christian apologetic theology and the literary and ecclesiastical legacies of the Great Persecution. Arius’s insistence on divine monotheism and transcendence together with his defense of a “living image” may echo the contemporary arguments with Celsus and Porphyry in Eusebius and Athanasius as well as a refutation of polytheism.

This chapter examines the western reception of the creed and canons of the 325 Council of Nicaea. The Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed appeared in the eucharistic liturgy towards the end of the sixth century, controversially with the insertion of filioque possibly at the Third Synod of Toledo in 589, although the creed was not used in Rome until 1014 under Benedict VIII, despite efforts by Charlemagne with Leo III early in the ninth century. The theological dispute over filioque resulted in the schism between East and West in 1054. The reception of the twenty canons of Nicaea as disciplinary law can be traced through letters of Roman bishops from the end of the fourth century onwards preserved mainly in what would become known as decretal collections. In the middle of the fourth century in Rome the canons from the 343 Synod of Serdica were conflated with the canons from Nicaea and early in the fifth century under Zosimus they were significant in the dispute between Rome and Carthage over questions of Rome’s authority. The questions examined are the degree to which the Catholic Church has considered the canons from Nicaea to be infallible and their status today.

Episcopal colleagues and later church historians praised Apollinarius of Laodicea for his adherence to the trinitarian orthodoxy articulated at the Council of Nicea and its use of the term homoousion to define the relationship between the divinity of the incarnate Son and that of his Father. However, Apollinarius and his disciples also used this term in Christological discussions concerning the relationship between Christ’s humanity and divinity. This chapter provides a detailed examination of the use of the Nicene term homoousion in the trinititarian and Christological statements of Apollinarius of Laodicea and his disciples. It then considers what prompted Apollinarius to make the move toward applying the Nicene homoousion to Christology, placing that critical moment in the late 350s and early 360s when Apollinarius may have been subject to influences from Athanasius of Alexandria and theologians in the Homoiousian movement. The chapter illuminates the links between trinitarian theology and Christology in the fourth century and what the debates about the Nicene homoousion in the Apollinarian community may have contributed to the Chalcedonian Definition of 451.

The normative importance of the Council of Nicaea in the Orthodox tradition cannot be overestimated. A landmark event in cementing the authority of the Council of Nicaea was the Council of Constantinople (381). In the fifth century, Cyril of Alexandria was singularly concerned about promoting the Nicene Creed and making the interpretation of its second article a focal point in the Christological controversy. The Council of Ephesus (431) formulated the principle of unchangeability of the Nicene faith. The Council of Chalcedon (451) reaffirmed this principle and, building upon the precedent of the Council of Constantinople, advanced a hermeneutic of continuity with the Council of Nicaea. In the sixth century, the Nicene faith passed into the Byzantine liturgy in the form of the Constantinopolitan Creed rather than the original Nicene Creed. In addition, the role of the Council of Nicaea was safeguarded in the Orthodox Church’s liturgical memory through the feast days dedicated to different aspects of the council. The council also left a mark in hagiography and iconography. During the Filioque Controversy, the Nicene legacy, especially the Constantinopolitan Creed without the Filioque clause, was turned into a marker of a Byzantine Christian as opposed to Latin Christian identity.